Gaps in Evidence-Based Therapy Use in Insured Patients in the United States With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.

Background Evidence-based therapies are generally underused for cardiovascular risk reduction; however, less is known about contemporary patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Methods and Results Pharmacy and medical claims data from within Anthem were queried for patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Using an index date of April 18, 2018, we evaluated the proportion of patients with a prescription claim for any of the 3 evidence-based therapies on, or covering, the index date ±30 days: high-intensity statin, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker, and sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist. The potential benefit of achieving 100% adoption of all 3 evidence-based therapies was simulated using pooled treatment estimates from clinical trials. Of the 155 958 patients in the sample, 24.7% were using a high-intensity statin, 53.1% were using an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker, and 9.9% were using either an sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. Overall, only 2.7% of the population were covered by prescriptions for all 3 evidence-based therapies, and 37.4% were on none of them. Over a 12-month period, 70.6% of patients saw a cardiologist, while only 18% saw an endocrinologist. Increasing the use of evidence-based therapies to 100% over 3 years of treatment could be expected to reduce 4546 major atherosclerotic cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death) in eligible but untreated patients. Conclusions Alarming gaps exist in the contemporary use of evidence-based therapies in this large population of insured patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. These data provide a call to action for patients, providers, industry, regulators, professional societies, and payers to close these gaps in care.

Atherosclerotic disease burden after bariatric surgery in patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: The rising rates of obesity, along with its associated morbidities, represent an important global health threat. Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is among the most common and hazardous obesity-related morbidity, and it is especially prevalent among those who suffer from type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Bariatric surgery (BS) is known to help with effective weight management and reduce the burden of cardiovascular risk factors, especially T2DM. METHODS: A nested propensity-matched cohort study was carried out using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. The cohort included 1186 patients with no past history of ASCVD, 593 of whom underwent BS and 593 propensity-score matched controls, followed up for a mean of 42.7 months. The primary end point was the incidence of new ASCVD; defined as new coronary artery disease (CAD), cerebrovascular disease (CeVD), peripheral arterial disease (PAD), or miscellaneous atherosclerotic disease; secondary end points included primary end point components alone and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Patients who underwent BS had significantly lower rates of new ASCVD (hazard ratio [HR] 0.53, confidence interval [CI] 0.30-0.95, P = 0.032. There were no significant differences in rates of CAD, CeVD, and PAD individually across cohorts, but a lower rate of all-cause mortality was observed in the BS cohort (HR 0.36, CI 0.19-0.71, P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: BS was associated with improved ASCVD outcomes and lower mortality in patients with obesity and T2DM. This study provides evidence for increased awareness of potential benefits of BS in the management of obesity by highlighting a potential role in primary prevention for ASCVD.

Prospective assessment of a critical appraisal teaching programme on medical students' confidence and performance in appraising medical literature.

BACKGROUND: Previous research has demonstrated that medical students have insufficient knowledge of critical appraisal, a fundamental aspect of evidence-based medicine. We aimed to enhance medical students' critical appraisal skills using an innovative mixed-methods programme. METHODS: We designed a 2-day, mixed-methods, national teaching programme, including an interactive lecture and workshop, quiz and viva-style examination. Course efficacy was assessed using pre- and post-course confidence questionnaires and a quiz adapted from the validated Berlin Questionnaire. Data were analysed primarily using Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test. RESULTS: Fifty-nine participants from 17 medical schools completed the programme. Pre- and post-course scores demonstrated significant improvement in confidence (median score 5 vs 8; p < 0.001) and quiz performance (median score 9 vs 13; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates the efficacy of a novel mixed-methods programme in teaching medical students about critical appraisal. Implementation of our approach within the undergraduate curriculum should enhance the uptake of these fundamental skills.